Investigate website tracking. Build on the facts.
Discover organizes browser observations, available capture files, and legal research questions for plaintiff firms. A technical detection is a starting point for investigation.
SB 690, signed September 30, 2026, takes effect January 1, 2027. It limits actions under §637.2 against private actors for §638.51 violations arising from websites, online services or mobile apps to the California Attorney General, including specified pending claims. This restriction does not depend on CCPA compliance. It does not amend §§631 or 632; those theories need their own facts and elements. Read the enacted text.
From a script signature to a reviewable record.
Identifying a technology does not establish what it collected, who received it, whether consent applied, or whether a claim is available.
Identify script and request signatures. Inspect the actual payload before describing captured inputs or communication contents.
Review requests, timing and recorded destinations. A tracker count does not measure legal violations or damages.
Investigate actual messages, recipients, notice, confidentiality and each party's role. A widget alone does not establish interception.
Device fingerprints and WebAuthn do not by themselves establish collection of a BIPA biometric identifier.
Separate destinations present in a capture from possible vendor relationships. Browser evidence cannot establish every downstream recipient.
Record the notice, choice and subsequent activity while preserving the user's stored choice. Legacy consent labels require revalidation.
A package must identify its scan date, method and available files. Historical catalogue entries can have missing artifacts or obsolete legal labels. Availability is confirmed individually before any pilot sale.
See the investigation format.
The sample is entirely synthetic. It illustrates the format and does not describe an actual website, capture or legal claim.
Evidence inventory
- Identified scan version and observation date
- Available artifacts, with missing files disclosed
- Recorded requests and detection provenance
- Consent-method limitations
Research worksheets
- Questions for claim-specific factual investigation
- Source links and adverse authority
- Standing, jurisdiction and consent review prompts
- No assumed plaintiff facts or recovery
Pilot scope
Each proposed package needs evidence and legal review before sale. The historical catalogue is not a list of approved claims or immediately available packages.
Understand the limits as well as the leads.
Routine browsing and tracking do not automatically establish a concrete injury. Review the law and the actual information at issue.
CIPA after SB 690
Distinguish the amended private remedy for online pen-register claims from the separate elements of §§631 and 632.
Read the CIPA guideStanding and consent
Evaluate the information disclosed, actual plaintiff experience, consent language, geography and adverse authority.
Read the consent guideFederal Wiretap Act
Assess contents, interception and party consent. The crime-tort exception requires a supported independent purpose.
Read the federal guideTechnical observations
Separate script presence, request transmission, payload contents and inferred vendor relationships.
Read the tracker guideRemedies
Statutory amounts depend on actionable conduct, defenses and the governing remedy. No automated class or damages estimate.
Read the remedies guideAttorney worksheets
Documents organize evidence and open questions. Attorneys supply verified facts and independently decide whether any demand or filing is appropriate.
Read the synthetic sampleA reviewed package pilot.
Explore the format
Use the synthetic demo to see the research workflow. Existing buyers can sign in to their purchased records.
Define the investigation
Discuss the website, timeframe and factual questions with us. Custom scanning is currently paused.
Review the scope
Before any pilot sale, confirm the specific scan, available files, limitations, fixed price and delivery terms.
Make an independent assessment
Your firm verifies facts, identifies any plaintiff and evaluates applicable law. Purchasing research does not establish or transfer a claim.
Discuss your evidence needs.
We are preparing a limited pilot of individually reviewed packages. Custom scanning and automatic catalogue sales are paused; we do not promise a delivery time before confirming scope.
Contact DeliberizeEvaluate the evidence before the case.
Fixed-price factual research for firms. No share of legal fees, client referral, assignment of claims or exclusivity is included.
Observation date and scan version
Research review status
Agreed price and delivery terms
Investigation tools for plaintiff attorneys.
Deliberize organizes website observations and research to help firms evaluate possible privacy matters. We are a technology company. Independent attorneys make all legal judgments.